This looks like it might be the beginning of large scale clashes between Moslem youth and Police in Europe. Reactions are muted so far, with some officials calling for a stern response, and others predictably wringing their hands at root causes and talking about throwing understanding, and wads of cash, at the ghettos. Meanwhile, the salafist youth are of course outraged at slights to their honor, as the vast moderate Moslem majority is no where to be seen.

153
comments:

Also in the city of Sedan, someplace in Denmark, and I think I heard of something going on in Spain. I kind of expect (hope?) Stockholm to come into play soon and maybe some of the southern French towns such as Marseille or Nice. Then there is Italy. Of course, there is no future in being a prophet 'cause they're almost always wrong.

Reactions are muted so far, with some officials calling for a stern response, and others predictably wringing their hands at root causes

I really don't see any easy answers. Changing the economics will take 10-20 years, changing the fruity-tooty governing philosophies maybe as long. Changing the racism on both sides? Gimme a break. Ain't going to happen anytime soon. It will probably get worse.

So, let's just be happy it ain't here while they're getting hit there. And this time let's keep the fight where it belongs: Europe. No more 9/11's. I just hope that suicide bombings, beheadings, and ieds don't come into real fashion because Europe is going to get ugly if they do.

BTW, isn't tourism one of the big industries in France? I wonder how this will play.

There has never been a finer explication of how multiculturalism leads to this than this one by Dr. Dalrymple, a British psychiatrist who works with prisoner and is an incredibly gifted writer. http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html

Paris is so vulnerable. It is ringed with these concrete hellholes chock full of unassimilated Moslems (mostly North African) who want to combine the liberties of low class western culture and the male perogatives of their birth culture. Add multiculturalism and you give them no incentive to assimilate and leave them outside the mainstream with a false sense that their failure is the result of discrimination not poor choices. If you haven't read this. You should.

Do any of you actually know France?There has been a tense relationship between France's 'beurs'(second and third generation North Africans)and the authorities since long before Bush declared his 'crusade'. Remember France colonised North Africa, and that colonisation, the independence wars and post-colonisation attitudes towards North Africans lie at the root of the unrest.You can fantasise as much as you want, but it won't make your fantasies come true.

Malmo is almost certainly the Swedish city most at risk for Moslem rioting. I'll be heading there the end of this month and will have my antenna tuned to incoming signals. The Swedes are both logistically and culturally unprepared (is any of Europe?) to deal with it if and when it happens.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I suspect they will play out similarly to the '67 race riots here in the US - although they've already exceeded the number of days of rioting. I don't know enough about either event to judge which was more widespread.

Euros love to believe they are the vanguard of social progress. IMHO they are normally about three or so decades behind the US when it comes to experiencing, recognizing, and learning to deal with the difficult social issues of the ever changing human condition and are more prone to make bad choices when dealing with it. They deny and delay probolem recognition too long, then select appeasement too earnestly, and finally "crack down" with too much gusto in the end.

As this unfolds I suggest keeping as keen an eye as possible open to watch for further advances in Euro anti-semitism. The Euros will not look favorably upon the Jews for this bout of Moslems rioting.

I'm pretty sure most of the folks who participate here are familiar with the idea that "tension" between Europe and the Arabic and moslem "worlds" predates modern times by centuries.

The Astronomical Clock in Prague, which dates to the early 15th century includes the "Death" figure with "The Turk" shaking his head. This is generally believed to reflect the "Turk's" denial that his "time was up" as well as the fear of the expansionist Ottoman empire which had reached well into Hungary and, of course, had laid siege to Vienna.

"Tension" between the alternating expansionist periods of both European empires and Moslem empires is many centuries deep. It predates both 9/11/01 and French colonialism by a very long time.

Don't know. It's possible. "Race riots" have been simmering in various places in Europe (and probably for a combination of reasons) for a while. Here's a report from the summer of 2001 about flare ups in England.

I've been going to Europe periodically for more than a quarter century now and as long as I've been going it's been clear to me that there are two things that never seem to change: a strong and socially acceptable undercurrent of anti-semitism and tensions about immigrants that are generally ascribed to "skinheads", "neo-nazis", or various small and politically irrelevant "ultra-nationalist" or "seperatist" groups. I've never kept data but I'd speculate that everytime I've visited there, at least in France, Belgium, and Sweden, there has been some recent case of some small violence. I've generally assumed it was nothing more than what we can easily find here in the US. I'm no longer sure that's the case.

It has always surprised me how many fringe seperatist groups there are in Europe from the Basques to the "Skona frits".

This latest round of riots - if what little bits and pieces of reporting we can find are accurate and there's no good reason to assume that they are - seems to be something akin to a "seperatist" movement to try and wall off Moslem ghetto enclaves from "outside interference" from the, ummm..., nationals.

That could be what Jez is after. There are many people who are always seeking the "root cause" or the "epochal event". Some people seem to view the curve of history as a sort of step function with some zero point at some axis.

Me, I tend to view it as an uninterrupted flow where things like Columbus sailing the ocean blue "find" the "New World" and the "final" driving of the Moors from Andalusia were part and parcel of the same timeline and that which we think seminal or final ain't hardly that at all.

I don't think these are "race riots" guys. I do believe that many of the kids who are doing the rioting are angry, and that their anger has much of it's origin in poverty and racial ostracization, but I don't think the kids doing the rioting are purely motivated by those concerns.

Instead, I think these riots are being directed and coordinated by Jihadis.

The rioters in Denmark, for instance, admitted that they had planned their rioting for three weeks. They said they were rioting because of the Mohammed cartoons in Jyllands-Posten. They told the reporters that they knew they were coming, and they were ready with "spokesmen" to talk to the reporters.

" So do the riots in Birmingham recently point to historical tension between West Indians, Pakistanis and Europeans?" What Europeans? You threw that in just to be PC,the riots were between West Indians and Pakistanis/ Bangladeshis.As for the colonialist crap,there are far more Asians living in Bradford than the entire number of British in the whole Indian Sub-continent at the height of the Raj.If ever India and Pakistan come to blows it can be accepted that the conflict will spill onto our streets.Why is there a problem in France,easy if a country is giving away free money,peasant societies will send one of their sons to collect it,it is an income that they send back to their families.That there is no employement is irrelevant,being there is the job.

So do the riots in Birmingham recently point to historical tension between West Indians, Pakistanis and Europeans?

I suspect it is a species of the usual tensions between different immigrant groups. There used to be similar tensions between the Poles, Italians, etc, in places like Pittsburgh. On the other hand, there seems to have been some racism in play, adding a bit of spice to the mix.

I suppose one could label this sort of thing historical, because many groups have historical records of racism. It is hardly a western thing, the West is/was just another example of this universal human tendency. Heck, I remember some German disdain for Italians. I mean, how much did Italy help Germany in WWII?

Anyway, life goes on. The cure is more complicated than the simple nostrums of root causes and "understanding". What could make things really ugly is if more lethal weapons come into play. There is only so much damage one can do with knives, clubs, rocks, and matches. Thank God for modern construction and fire departments.

many of the kids who are doing the rioting are angry, and that their anger has much of it's origin in poverty and racial ostracization, but I don't think the kids doing the rioting are purely motivated by those concerns.

Instead, I think these riots are being directed and coordinated by Jihadis.

The rioters in Denmark, for instance, admitted that they had planned their rioting for three weeks.

Good points. If we take the trouble to look into most any example of widespread rioting I suspect we'll find some form of "jihadist" doing the organizing and propaganda work and using the "poverty and racial ostracization" to enlist the youthful fodder to wreak the desired havoc. Riots (and revolutions for that matter) are rarely fully spontaneous events. There's always somebody behind the scenes making a power play and/or trying to tap into a source of revenue. And those somebodies are typically well educated and economically comfortable (although not sufficiently so to meet their personal desires). Somewhere within this there are "leaders" with an agenda. The fact that some rioting yutes have some prepared talking points is a pretty good inicator that somebody who thinks a bit more long-term and deeply than yutes are normally capable of has been stoking some fires for a while.

Knucklehead,I LIVE in Europe. Anti-semitism exists, and much of it emanates from 'neo-nazis' or extreme right-wing parties.I'm not aware of anti-semitism being ascribed to sparatists, though I am aware of racism in general within separatist groups, since their 'struggles' are of a nationalistic character.Within the general population, there may well be some anti-semitism, but it is no stronger than racism in general. There is definitely a presence of anti-zionism, but that is of course not the same as anti-semitism.In fact, in recent years, there has been an upsurge (at least it's more visible) of anti-Arab feeling and islamophobia(witness the anti-headscarf ban episode and various articles and books which purport to explain the dangers of the so-called 'islamization' of France-talk about paranoid fantasy!).The idea that the riots aim to create an 'enclave' is based on the same kind of fantasy, I'm afraid.Pastorius,Jihadists? Again:fantasy.Your 'explanation' of the Danish riots doesn't show that it's the work of 'Jihadists'. I don't know the background or the situation of Muslims in Denmark, and I doubt you do either.Peter, I suggest you re-read all the comments, and then you might understand better.Chuck, racism has indeed long existed, and there are many causes, of which one is colonialism. I don't think 'understanding' is a simple nostrum. Usually, when attempting to solve a problem, one looks at the causes.

No Jez,I was replying to your comment about Birmingham,I presume you don't live in all of Europe,it would be interesting to know from whence comes your all encompassing knowledge.

Colonialism is the standard left mantra cocerning the root causes of racism,this is rather stupid considering there are at least two generations that don't even know there was an Empire.

A great deal of anti-semitism arises in the Muslim community,an EU report fudged this issue in its preamble,blaming the odious neo-nazis,but the figures in the main body of the report laid much of the responsibility on the Muslim extremists.

Your statement concerning Jihadists was riseable, in the light of the paranoid fantasy bombing of the Tube on 7/11.

It is an an uncontrovertable fact that some immigrant communities for enclaves,refusing to mix with the rest of the population.Rioters have openly created no go areas.

Incendiary statements by some Imams make it quite clear that there is a wing in Islam,which is anti-Western,antisemitic and fascist in nature.

The extreme left have combined with this wing and are apologists for it.George Galloway's party Respect comes to mind,as does the unholy alliance between the SWP and the MAB.BTW What is your position on Palestine?

In replying to your first post I purposesly changed your "Bush declared his 'crusade'" to mention of 9/11, and your talk about colonialism to pre-colonial conflicts between Islam and Europe. It was a polite way of pointing out that where a narrative starts can color how it progresses.

You want to talk about root causes? How about increasing desertification of the central portion of the Silk Road, coupled with the Europeans opening a sea route to the Spice Islands, knocking the Caliphate's economy into a tailspin it never recovered from?

What does that get us in regards to riots in France and Holland today? Precious little. The "Root Cause" business is little more than an exercise in affixing blame.

One needs to, as best as possible, understand all sides in a conflict, and have some idea how they got to be where they are -- but in the end of the day it is people today who are influencing the events of the day. We are either helpless puppets on the end of history's string or we have to accept responsibility for our actions.

I have no idea where these riots are leading. Even though I'm not sitting in a cafe drinking tea with them, I have little doubt that the religion of Mohammed is being discussed by many doing the rioting.

racism has indeed long existed, and there are many causes, of which one is colonialism.

True enough. The Frankish conquest of France led to the original "class" concept being based on the racist theme of the original natives vs the Germanic conquerors who constituted the nobility.

The Muslim conquest of India led to similar patterns of racism, and of course the arab trade in slaves is well known, as well as the continuing practice of slavery in North African countries. God forbid that the anti-slavery impositions of the religious colonial administrators should continue into the present day.

Likewise, the widespread racism in Russia can no doubt be attributed to their imperial conquests as well as being a justified response to their own days of servitude after Kievan Rus was conquered by maurauding Mongols back in the days of the Golden Horde.

I don't think 'understanding' is a simple nostrum.

It is a simple nostrum because the understanding is simple. Nor is understanding of much use to the understood, it tends to be a lazy out for the understanders. Understanding, after all, is easy. One merely mouths the proper platitudes and, voila, one understands.

Nor is France going to provide useful employment for their youth anytime soon. Even the college educated can find it work hard to come by. That is the core problem, really. The rest could be dealt with.

Therein may lie a clue. In particular it would be a clue about what is considered "normal" and "acceptable" and what one might notice and not notice.

As I mentioned earlier I've been traveling to Europe somewhat regularly for just a bit more than a quarter century now. I've been over a good bit of what was once known as Western Europe. I've been there for as long as 2.5 years (as a young soldier), 3 months (as a tourist and "guest worker" - aka "immigrant"), for days and weeks on business, and as a family member.

I do not claim to be an expert on Europe but I have been exposed over the years to a pretty good cross-section of European society. I am not overly fond of doing the typical tourist sorts of things and am prone to going "walkabout" to try and get a feel for what people do and talk about - how they live. When in Rome I make some attempt to do as the Romans do (well, except for that pinching the girls routine - too many females in my life to have the audacity to try that schtick). When possible I engage in or eavesdrop on conversation. I prefer not to select the topics.

I have also traveled extensively within the US and am reasonably familiar with my fellow countrymen. I assure you that it is my experience which, while obviously anecdotal, I consider quite valid, that "the Jews" are not only far more frequently entered into ordinary conversation in Europe than in America but the level of negativity, animosity, or anger is generally higher in Europe than in the US.

I have sometimes been shocked by it and the venues in which it occurs. There have been a few cases where it occured to me that had such a thing been said in such a place, by such a person, in the US a law suit or disciplinary action would have resulted.

It is, of course, possible that we Americans have grown hyper-sensitive to these sorts of things due to the level of political correctness imposed upon us. But I find this to be the case even in the privacy of homes among "polite company". The level of discourse I have heard would, in my experience, be considered evidence of bigotry in the US but seems quite ordinary in Europe.

This is a matter of which I have zero doubt. None whatsoever.

My own opinion re: the matter of anti-zionism vs. anti-semitism is that it is, as often as not, a thin veneer put in place to allow the proponent of "anti-zionism" the pretense of not being anti-semitic ( a bigot about Jews).

A European traveling and having business or family ties within the US would possibly find something similar to this with respect to the general attitude about blacks (although I think there would typically be less harsh commentary re: blacks from the "average American" than about Jews from the "average European").

This is a bit tricky to discern in my experience, however, since Euros seem to hold the Conventional Wisdom that virtually all Americans are bigots about blacks. I find that Euros are somewhat prone to unprovoked verbal attacks upon Americans on this topic and frequently raise it in conversation. Not sure why. I have been amused to detect a categorization of blacks among Europeans into, roughly speaking, blacks and "American blacks" with the latter being thought of pretty much as pimps, drug dealers, and criminals.

To this American's sensibilities anti-jewism is astonishingly widespread in Europe compared with the US.

Incendiary statements by some Imams make it quite clear that there is a wing in Islam,which is anti-Western,antisemitic and fascist in nature.

The extreme left have combined with this wing and are apologists for it.

I don't find this odd. One of the chief aims of the left from Marx to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, has been to pull down Western Civilization and its religious foundations in order to remake it. I think this fits well with the Jihadist desires.

I think Knuck is onto something, though, when he conjectures that this is just another European separatist movement. I am trying the thought on for size.

I neglected to deal with this portion of your reply to me (at least I think it was to me):

The idea that the riots aim to create an 'enclave' is based on the same kind of fantasy, I'm afraid.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The enclaves exist. Do you claim that there are no Moslem enclaves in France (or Europe) and that these aren't Moslem enclaves where the riots are ongoing?

I did not claim these riots are attempts to create enclaves. I apologize for being too lazy to go track down the link but I have searched for repoting about these riots and have seen the statement in some reasonably mainstream English version of European press words to the effect that the "riots seem intended to keep out police and other officials".

I read that to suggest that the rioters, in so far as they may have any political motivation or goal, it may be a form of "seperatist" movement to establish "autonomy" of the enclave from the larger political authority. I also indicated that, the media being the media, there is no good reason to assume their claim was correct.

It occured to me that I might be using the term "enclave" carelessly or incorrectly so I went and looked it up:

en·claven. 1. A country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another. 2. A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit: ethnic enclaves in a large city.

My original usage was consistent with #2. This is what I mean when I use the term. Enclaves by this definition are quite common. I can easily point (and travel to since they are reasonably nearby) Hindi, Polish, Russian, Chinese, and Hassidic enclaves.

This applies to our discussion here about what the rioters in Europe are after. Naturally we have to take the utterings of "youths" with the appropriate mineful of salt, but statements like:

"This area belongs to us", the youths proclaim.

Suggest that they want "others" or "them" (presumably Danes in general and/or Danish authorities) to stay the heck out of their neighborhood.

Interestingly the Reutters report that Roger links to gives up this little tidbit:

"The law must be firmly applied and in a spirit of dialogue and respect," government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope quoted Chirac as telling the weekly cabinet meeting.

"The absence of dialogue and escalation of disrespect would lead to a dangerous situation. There cannot be 'no-go' areas in the republic," Cope told reporters.

which would seem to lend at least some support the idea that at least part of what the rioters seem to want is for authorities to "keep out". Acquiescing to demands to "keep out" would, of course, render the Neighborhoods Under Test defacto areas of autonomy (with autonomy under these conditions being most likely indistinguishable from anarchy).

I'll try and summarise an answer to the last few commentsIronically bringing historical events into the debate doesn't do much for your argument.I think most rationally-thinking people will understand that there is a difference between comparing events today with events that happened less than a century ago, and comparing them with events that took place several centuries ago. Christian crusades don't mean Christians today are all fanatics.I suspect if one were to travel around the US, one would find several examples of anti-French feeling. I don't think this translates as a racist attitude, though. The same goes for anti-American feeling in Europe. Such feeling has more to do with criticism of official policy. Why would it be different regarding Israel? Why does criticism of Israel and Zionism(a political idea)racist?I very much doubt there is anymore real anti-Jewish racism here than there is anti-Arab racism. I would in fact say that there is probably more of the latter. I haven't, however, conducted a survey, it's merely an opinion.Oh, and why is it wrong for Europeans to generalise about attitudes towards blacks in the US, yet alright for Americans to generalise about attitudes towards Jews in France?Peter, again, I suggest you re-read previous posts, and you might understand.The fact that there are people in France who preach fundamentalist Islamism doesn't prove that riots are conducted by Islamists. It was suggested that 'Muslim enclaves' existed in France. That is simply not the case. There are suburbs with a high immigrant population, of which the majority come from North Africa, but these suburbs are not Muslim ghettoes.While there are probably 'no-go areas' connected to gangsterism, this is not an indicator of 'Muslim separatism' in France.Again, I believe such an idea is fantasy.Your last comment, Knucklehead, doesn't show that these are 'MUSLIM enclaves'.

Knucklehead wrote:"I'm pretty sure most of the folks who participate here are familiar with the idea that "tension" between Europe and the Arabic and moslem "worlds" predates modern times by centuries."

That's why I compared it-tongue in cheek-to the riots in Brimingham. He used the term 'Europe' so I used the term 'Europeans'. The riots in France were not between 'Muslims' and 'Europeans'. They were between youths from poor suburbs and the police. Get it?

Ambi--as usual I stand in awe of your historical knowledge re the european voyages of discovery, the diminution of the importance of the silk road, and derivetively the decline of Islamic state influence--Bravo!

I know Jez encourages not to look at historical arguments, but it seems to me if we dont understand historical arguments stemming from the battle of tours, and the reconquista, the destruction of the moslim empire of al adaluz, the decline of the silk road and its protectors, and the failure of the Ottoman Turks to take Vienna, we fail to understand the burden of total failure now faced by Islam--

Although Islam had glorious beginnings, it failed, in large part, because it never had an Aquinas who could separate faith and reason; it failed because it never had Marsilio of Padua who who could separate the temporal and sacred sword, and because it has failed in a dozen encounters with the west.

Those historical roots are overwhelming--so in a sense, Jez is correct, he just isnt casting his net far enough.

And in Arhus too? And why shouldn't the police be there? If French law is kept out, I think it a good bet that it will be replaced by general thuggery and criminal oppression of the most atavistic sort.

As to banning the Hijab, while I think it would be ridiculous in this country, religious as we are, I am multi-culti enough to understand it as a reflection of the anti-clerical strand in French society dating back to the Revolution. At least they didn't burn the mosques, execute the imams, and murder 200,000 muslims in revolt. France *has* made progress.

Jez,It took you a long time to come up with that crock,too many posts in between.Who were the rioters rioting against...the French police...South Americans to a man. Anyway,what is your position on Palestine?

RogerA,There were fabulous civilisations in the Middle East and Mediterranean,Egypt,Babylon Ninevah,Ur of the Chaldes,Persia,Greece and Rome,in some cases thousands of years before Islam.I invite you to look at the cradle of civilisation now.

...bringing historical events into the debate doesn't do much for your argument.

It may or may not depending....

I think most rationally-thinking people will understand that there is a difference between comparing events today with events that happened less than a century ago, and comparing them with events that took place several centuries ago.

Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. When recent events (picking the past century or whatever is fine) are relatively consistent with, or bear some overall resemblence to, events along some longer timeline then the older historic events may be germane.

Are today's "tensions" between the Western world and the Arabic/Moslem world more properly attributed to the history of the past hundred or so years or are they merely a continuation of events stretching back more than a half-millenium of which the past century is merely more of the same old same old?

Surely you recognize that cases can be made for either situation. I tend towards believing that no point in history can be siezed upon as some "starting point" at which all that went before it becomes irrelevant. Just to grab an example, without the Conquistadors there would have been no great and thriving horseback warrior culture of the plains Indians for the Evil Eurocentric Americans to have wiped out. There would have been fewer, more localized, foot and dog bound natives who were not reknown and admired for killing only as many bison as they needed because if the Conquistadors hadn't introduced horses they would still have been stampeding bison herds of cliffs in mass slaughters.

Change any history and you change all history. If Mohammedans don't sieze the Holy Land there are no Crusades to recover them. If the Moors hadn't conquered Andalusia the Spanish wouldn't have driven them out and there'd be no OBL fatwah to regain Andalusia.

But anyway...

Christian crusades don't mean Christians today are all fanatics.

Nor does it mean that the Christians of the period who undertook the Crusades were "fanatics" by the standards of the time. We tend to judge the people of the distant past by the standards of today. That is an egregious mistake to make. The context provided by the full flow of history is important.

I'm digressing again, sorry.

I suspect if one were to travel around the US, one would find several examples of anti-French feeling.

Absolutely. Anti-French feeling is relatively high (but probably remains within its historical ebb and flow boundaries) in the US.

Some of us in the US assert that France is a quasi-enemy of the US.

I don't think this translates as a racist attitude, though.

Of course not. It has nothing to do with race. Neither "American" nor "French" is a race. "American" may not even qualify as an ethnicity (I would claim it does but I'd be a dangerously thin ice).

The same goes for anti-American feeling in Europe. Such feeling has more to do with criticism of official policy.

Oh pishaw! Anti-American (now anti-US as well as anti-American) feeling goes back long before there was any official US policy regarding anything and has continued regardless of US policies. And the same is true of American feelings toward France and the French.

Do we really need to go down the history lesson timeline here? Much of our culture is through the English (and somewhat through the German) portion of our ancestry. I assure you those ancestors had no particular love for France or the French just as the ancestors of today's Frenchmen had no particular love for Americans long before there was a US.

These sorts of animosity flows survive over centuries regardless of the policiess of governments. Policies sometimes mitigate or attentuate them but generally are nothing more than excuses siezed upon for convenience. And the average Frenchman knows nothing more about "official US policy" than does the average American about "official French policy".

Why does criticism of Israel and Zionism(a political idea)racist?

What does criticism of Israel or Zionism have to do with this or this or this all of which claim to document "rising" anti-semitism in France which seems to be acknowledged by the French government itself? If it is all about "criticism of Israel" or "anti-zionism" rather than anti-semitism, why is anyone in France making life difficult for Jews in France? And why are Fearful Jews Fleeing France with no regrets?

Oh, and why is it wrong for Europeans to generalise about attitudes towards blacks in the US, yet alright for Americans to generalise about attitudes towards Jews in France?

I did not generalize anti-semitism to all French people or all Europeans. What I said, based upon my experience and compared against American standards, was that anti-semitism is astonishingly common in Europe. I stand by that assertion.

Making generalized claims is an unfortunate necessity for conversations such as this. It is a mistake for anyone to make generalized claims without recognizeng the inherent limitations. I do not have hard data that "proves" X% of European, or French, and Y% of American people harbor anti-semitic attitudes and X is greater than Y.

I do have a not inconsequential level of experience over time that tells me that anti-semitism is more common among Europeans than among Americans and is probably more strongly held where it exists among Europeans than among Americans. I recognize this as a very different thing than claiming that all Europeans (or Frenchmen) are Jew hating anti-semites.

It was suggested that 'Muslim enclaves' existed in France. That is simply not the case. There are suburbs with a high immigrant population, of which the majority come from North Africa, but these suburbs are not Muslim ghettoes.

Would you please elaborate upon the distinction within this difference?

While there are probably 'no-go areas' connected to gangsterism, this is not an indicator of 'Muslim separatism' in France.

Well, it seems as if your claim is one of distinguishing between causation (gangsterism) and correlation (Moslem religious affiliation) for the ongoing violence in the North African immigrant neighborhoods.

Regardless of the actual causation - be it gangsterism or Islamism - there are almost certainly "leaders". Time will tell (assuming that information can flow past the media and government gatekeepers) whether those leaders are gangsters, or Islamists, or some of both.

Again, I believe such an idea is fantasy.

Your assignation of "fantasy" to conjecture or opinion that differs with your own is uncalled for and unecessary. To each his own fantasies.

"here are suburbs with a high immigrant population, of which the majority come from North Africa, but these suburbs are not Muslim ghettoes.While there are probably 'no-go areas' connected to gangsterism, this is not an indicator of 'Muslim separatism' in France."

Could you provide figures for the number of non-muslim residents in those areas?

Neo-neocon (While Europe Slept) is pondering this topic and is doing yet more of her good work. She points to a Theodore Dalrymple's August 2002, Barbarians at the Gates of Paris article which is, indeed, sobering and chilling and, it seems, prescient.

PeterUK--the civilization that was once Islam is now a parody of what it once was--Ibn Khaldun, in his muqhadimmah, described the nomadic tribes that became islam--the world has returned islam to those tribes that engage in blood feuds, honor killings and the like. Rome's 2000 years ended with the Emperor John Paleogeous dying in his purple robes defending that civilization in 1453--Islam ended with young boys and girls blowing themselves up to kill other young boys and girls. What a tragedy.

I think my position on Palestine is pretty clear from my post.Knucklehead, we can debate forever on the relvance of different periods in history, but it would be chronologically more logical to refer first to recent periods when looking for causation.No doubt you will disagree, but in that case we'll just have to agree to disagree.There has indeed been criticism of US policies in France for a long time-possibly since the US took on a more agressive role in world affairs and started exporting it's culture. A lot of this criticism is exagerrated and unfounded, but it is still not racially based.The same is probably true of anti-French feeling in the US.And I'm sure the same goes for anti-Israel feeling. I never equated governments with their citizens, by the way.I repeat that I am doubtful there is any more anti-Jewish racism than anti-Arab racism in France.There are plenty of cases of anti-Arab racism, particularly within the establishment.The fact that anti-semitism exists(where doesn't it-I even saw reports of anti-semitism in Israel coming from 'fake' russian Jews)and that anti-zionism also exists does not mean the two can be equated. Furthermore, there are more reasons for Jews to emigrate to Israel than just anti-semitic attacks.Describing areas as 'Muslim enclaves' and talking of 'Muslim separatism' in France give the impression of a religiously-motivated effort to separate within France. There is no factual evidence as far as I know to support this.Good night!

I repeat that I am doubtful there is any more anti-Jewish racism than anti-Arab racism in France.There are plenty of cases of anti-Arab racism, particularly within the establishment.

Oh, I don't doubt the French are equal opportunity snobs. I say snobs for lack of a better term. Race sounds like, well, like race is involved. Anyway, I don't doubt there is plenty of prejudice of all sorts floating about: anti-American, anti-muslim, anti-semitic. I expect Le Pen appeals to all three. Such is life in a stagnating country.

No,not a single word, I waded through your turgid Chomskian parsing of the word enclave,amazing how a virtually monocultural,monotheistic suburb fails the enclave test,let alone the qualifying as a ghetto.Fortunately the French Government is not as deeply in denial as you are.BTW Did I notice a bijou stamp of the foot as you left?

"The fact that anti-semitism exists(where doesn't it-I even saw reports of anti-semitism in Israel coming from 'fake' russian Jews)and that anti-zionism also exists does not mean the two can be equated."

An antisemite will be,per se,an anti-zionist,since Israel is the Jewish state.So we are half way there.A great many of those who support a Palestinian state are fully aware that the stated aims of the Palestinian terrorist groups is "Wiping Israel off the Map"Since this can only be achieved over the dead bodies of the Israelies,who coincidentally just happen to be Jews,it is pretty certain that,at the very least, those supporters are somewhat indifferent to the fate of the Jews.So we gone quite a way to equating antisemitism and anti-Zionism.The latter is shorthand used by the hard left for antisemitism,since the hard left is closely associated with extreme Islamic groups,who openly call for the death of all Jews,the final nail is put in the Chomskian casuistry of those who live in a world of words,with no right and wrong,no is and isn't,no truth or lies.

It never ceases to amaze me how Americans are told we know nothing of Europe and yet Europeans are positively obsessive when it comes to lecturing, moralizing, passing judgment on Americans and American culture.

If you do not think that Muslim youth rioting in Paris has anything to do with radical Islam I really have to wonder about your objectivity.

As for the difference between anti semitism and anti Zionism, the latter is just the socially acceptable form of the former.

The thing that amazes me is that Europeans in general have the audacity to pass judgment on the Israelis considering centuries of persecution and ethnic cleansing not to mention genocide of the Jews.

America is not that insular or isolated. Believe it or not people from all over the world do live here and it is not as if we have never encountered Europeans or spoken with them. It seems to me that in many ways the Europeans are the ones living in isolation and denial, not us.

It's clear that we'll have to "agree to disagree" but that is irrelevant. You've argued your points - whether I or anyone else agrees - in a civil fashion.

In case you return I'd like to take up a discussion of some of your commentary...

There has indeed been criticism of US policies in France for a long time-possibly since the US took on a more agressive role in world affairs...

And when would that be? Was it when the colonists resisted (or perhaps more accurately came into direct conflict with) French expansionism in North America and France's use of Indians to attack colonial settlements?

Or maybe when the US wouldn't succumb to Tallyerand's demand for pot-de-vins.

Perhaps it was when Jefferson sent the Navy and Marines to the Mediterranean to deal with the Barbary Pirates? Or maybe when Monroe issued the Monroe Doctrine warning Europe to stay out of the Americas?

Or perhaps when, once the Confederacy was finally finished, Grant dispatched 50,000 troops under the command of Sheridan to Texas and rearmed the Jauristas effectively putting an end to the Napolean III's attempt to add Mexico to the empire.

Or Maybe it was WWI, or WWII. Or the Cold War. The Balkans?

Hard to identify precisely when "US took on a more agressive role in world affairs" that might have upset the French, isn't it. Hard to say which of the various events provided impetus to keep feelings of animosity alive into subsequent generations, isn't it.

...and started exporting it's culture.

One of the great Euro (and French in particular) cannards, that one.

Please put it to bed, tuck it in lovingly, and neglect to wake it up.

The US doesn't "export its culture". There is no agency of the Department of Commerce tasked with exporting "American Culture". If you don't want to import or copy or wear the bluejeans or watch the movies or adopt American words and phrases, don't.

The world is growing smaller every day and the vibrant or universally interesting or entertaining aspects of many cultures find their way into other cultures constantly. It's amazing how many Average Joe's eat sushi anymore. Get over it or it try to wall your nation off from the world as a whole or the American influences within it at your own peril.

I repeat that I am doubtful there is any more anti-Jewish racism than anti-Arab racism in France.

Yes, you repeated. You made the point several times and I deliberately ignored it. An assertion that there is no more anti-Jewish bigotry than anti-Arab bigotry in France (or anywhere else) is no defence for whatever anti-Jewish bigotry there is.

And the fact that French Jews emmigrate to Israel, in some cases, for reasons other than fear is no defence for the fact that some Jews flee France due to fear.

Another report from the London Times. I find it amusing that Villepin puts down the British multicultural model as a failure. Guess everyone has to be the perfect Frenchman. Maybe the poor souls in the Vendee should start their own separatist movement. Anyway, the French establishment seems opposed to Sarkozy. I wonder how is popularity is holding up among the ordinary citizens?

I'm curious as to why Jez was trying to make the argument that these riots were not occuring in Moslem ghettos ringing Paris?

Especially since he started out by pin pointing the French colonization of North Africa as the root of the problem. One would think ghettoized, down-trodden masses would come in handy for the point he seemed to be trying to make.

-------------------------

From Chuck's article, "The defiant anti-government talk of Mohamed and Sidi is the norm among the disaffected Muslims of the estates after clashes with France’s heavy-handed riot police."

From the article I linked to yesterday, "The president of SOS-Racism, an anti-racism group, called Tuesday for a 'massive investment plan' to cure suburban ills. 'The police response alone ... are not at all adequate to the problem in question,' Dominique Sopo said on France-Info radio, calling for a 'real policy of breaking the ghettos.' The money must go not only to building, but also to caring for the people via local associations, he said.

I'm curious as to why Jez was trying to make the argument that these riots were not occuring in Moslem ghettos ringing Paris?

I have no idea what Jez's hangup about the words "enclave" or "ghetto" is. Possibly a linguistic thing. Don't know if his native language is French and those words have some stronger connotations or not.

The point he seems to be trying to make is that they are not "moslem" enclaves/ghettos/whatevers but, rather, immigrant whatevers which just happen to be primarily North African immigrants who just happen to be moslem. He clearly wants to disconnect the riots from "Islamist" causation and connect it to "gangsterism" or something else more "universal".

It is possible he is at least partially correct. I don't know enough about the ghettos of Paris but what I do know suggests they are predominantly occupied by people who are moslem to varying degrees. The fact that there is rampant violence in ghettos in a major western city is not historically unusual. Given that the primary generators of rampant violence these days happen to also be moslem is a good indicator of where the impetus for violence is centered but, heh, maybe they are just urban gangs run amok who happen to also be North African muslims. That doesn't strike me as the way to bet on this one but it's his nickle dropping in the slot.

Knucklehead,It was a standard,"Move along,nothing to see here", screed.No enclaves,no ghettos,antisemitism and anti-zionism can not be synonymous,no Islamic separatism.Not really very helpful in a fraught situation.It perturbs me since a tunnel was thoughtlessly dug under the channel linking us to all this by train.All EU citizens are free to move to other member's countries.Odd that this occured in more than one European country at the same time.

The interesting thing is that often times it is the second generation that seems to feel the most isolated. Sometimes I wonder if the original immigrants from a generation ago were more desirous to be a part of the larger culture and thus made a greater effort at assimilation.

Terrye,Some communities are totally enclosed,the first generation came to work,but never assimilated,often the men come first bringing their families later,often the wives cannot speak the language of the host country,their culture disbars women from mixing with host society.Wome are not allowed to be educated,leave the house without permission or a male relative and always covered.Many immigrant groups have large families,and here is the rub,it is a common practice for the children of immigrants to have arranged marrriages with partners from the old country.Thsi means that even someone born and raised in the West can have a spouse who cannot speak the language or have skills required in the west.Teenage girls for example disappear from school on reaching puberty and are sent back to the old country, returning with a husband,a westernised female can find herself living the life of her forebearers.So whilst the next generation is born and raised here,one parent is still rooted in the old country.These groups may work amongst us but they do not socialise in any real sense.I would hazard that this situation obtains in Paris also,it is a recipe for disaster.

Investigation into this is discouraged,figures are not kept,but anecdotal information from teachers suggests it is fairly common in the Bangladshi community.I needn't spell out the difference with the Greeks.So far the US is lucky, you are not all competing for the same space,Leicester and Bradford will be cities with Muslim majorities in a few years,this has all occured within a few decades.There is a point where numbers mean the immigrants do not have to assimilate,and yes large ghettos are forming.

The countryside is remarkably empty. Moreso, I think, than 50 years ago. Meanwhile, the Mennonites are buying up the abandoned farmland and spreading. I think Dearborn may be a Muslim majority city but no one really cares. The Michigan banks offer Muslim acceptable loans, etc., and tests may be rescheduled around Ramadan. Not a whole lot different, really, than Jewish holidays in NYC schools. At least, ISTR some Jewish holidays. Anyway, this country really does adapt, and why not if you can make a buck doing so? The dollar is the universal solvent. I think problems here are really quite different than in Europe, but living in the sticks as I do, I would hate to put money on it.

Chuck,The problem is,see Freedom of Speech in Denmark,that governments cannot silence the bombers and the screamers and so silence the natives.Some immigrant groups will not adapt,we have to.There are also some disfunctional and totalitarian nations who feel that they now have a say in our affairs.

There are also some disfunctional and totalitarian nations who feel that they now have a say in our affairs.

Well, didn't the Europeans bend over forward to give them that priviledge? I can't see the French staying in that position forever. Whatever else they are, they *are* French. What is disheartening about England is that the Tories have wimped out. What sort of conservative party is that that doesn't care about tradition and spouts touchy feely fluff?

BTW, I was reading that the V for victory came from Agincourt as the English archers taunted the French by showing the fingers that the French threatened to cut off if any archer was captured. True?

European nations really did not examine the ramifications of large scale immigration into developed and settled society.The possible downside was never envisioned,only the positive aspects were promoted.Poor little Denmark never imagined that a third world country would take them to task on a domestic issue.I hate to say this but we acquired political correctness from you,there was nothing wrong with burgers and rock and roll,but PC!!In my view the Tories are finished,I wouldn't vote for Captain Lip Trembler Blair and I am damned if I will vote for his touchy feely clone...but you know what political are like,somewhat similar to R&R acts in that they always chase that which as been successful,hence the preponderance of Boy bands at one time..it really is too much though these Boy politicians.

Sorry,I forgot the archers,probably a myth sine it took three fingers to draw a longbow,index on top of the arrow middle two beneath,contrary to popular conceptions,it was the string that was pulled back not the arrow.Ferocious weapon,I would rather get shot with a modern metal jacket slug.

I hate to say this but we acquired political correctness from you,there was nothing wrong with burgers and rock and roll,but PC!!

Yeah, sorry about that. We sent you syphilis too and got socialism in return. Not sure who lost most by that yet.

As to the V sign, the fingers to be cut off were the thumb, first, and index fingers. Why the French omitted the third finger, I don't know, but I expect removing the listed fingers would be effective nonetheless. It is remarkable how few long bows have survived to the present, is it not? The Mary Rose seems to have been the largest source for historical specimens.

Sorry Peter, my mistake:I got confused with the 'other' debate I'm in: http://www.blogusblogaeblogum.blogspot.comThere, that should help you!I won't comment any longer on the anti-zionism/anti-semitism debate, since in the face of logic, most of you just answer with standard fallacies. I'll just say this, in case somebody did'n get it: I have never claimed anti-semitism doesn't exist in France. There is no excuse for anti-semitism or any other kind of racism. I am of Jewish origin, as well as various european origins. I don't claim to be a 'victim' of racism(that would be stupid), but I have felt it. Racism is a loaded word and an innacurate one most often, but it's the best we have in this debate, I guess.Knucklehead, I knew you'd pick out one small phrase in my last post and string it out into a debate, and I knew that would be the phrase-how clairvoyant of me! I did mention, did I not, that a lot of anti-american feeling in France is exagerrated and unfounded, just as it probably is in the reverse form. You seem to wish to turn this into a french vs american debate, but I'm not interested in that.If you visit my blog, you'll realise I am far from being a french patriot or even a british patriot. And my native languages are irrelevant, by the way!The 'muslim enclave' debate is becoming rather stupid too, I'm afraid, still I'll add this:sometimes(often), words are important. There is a difference between an 'immigrant suburb'(or ghetto if you must) and a 'muslim enclave'. While dictionary definitions are important, common usage is also important. I am not that familiar with US-English(though I do watch Saturday Night Live sometimes!), but in UK English 'enclave' is not a word often used to describe an area with a high population of one ethnic/religious group. Ghetto might be, but remains a loaded term. I have no doubt Peter will correct me, but I can assure you I have plenty of experience of growing up and living in the UKOh, and Terrye, you seem to have missed something:Israel does not represent Jews. You can repeat fallacies like a mantra as long as you like, but it won't make them any more true.Peter, I see BNP-style speech is alive and kicking. No doubt it's members love Israel for dealing with the 'Jewish problem'. If only there could be a 'Muslim democracy' which would deal with all those troublesome Muslims, eh?Thanks Rogera, thanks Knucklehead. You are welcome anytime too!

Well if Israel does not represent the Jews perhaps you should tell that to the Palestianians and their fellow Arabs not to mention the mad mullahs of Iran..perhaps then they will stop threatening to drive the Jews into the sea. Maybe then they will stop chanting Kill the Jews in reference to Israel.

In fact it is highly unlikely that if not for European homicidal antisemitism Israel would ever have come to existence following WW2. Or at least not in the way it did.

After all the Arab Muslims had declared a fatwa against the Jews many years before the establishment of Israel and that fatwa simply became a declaration of war against the state of Israel.

So if Israel does not represent Jews then those brave resistance fighters from Hamas are sending brainwashed teenagers off to blow up themeselves and the wrong people.

Terrye,While I abhor the harming and killing of innocent civilians, it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general. Furthermore, why I should have to tell them is irrelevant to our discussion here. I am neither muslim, nor a terrorist.As for 'European homicidal antisemitism', sure there was such a thing, though it was more specifically German, and even more specifically Nazi. The Americans, Northern and Southern, murdered natives by the...well, I don'thave the figures and will not make them up. Does that make Americans today homicidal? More recently, Blacks were segregated against and generally treated as second class citizens. Are Americans slave masters? What about the Afrikaaners? Could they be accused today of being a bunch of murdering slave-masters? If you want to fight racism and bigotry in general, you ought to refrain from using such hyperbolic language. Then again, perhaps what drives you is not so much fighting bigotry as defending Israel.

"I won't comment any longer on the anti-zionism/anti-semitism debate, since in the face of logic, most of you just answer with standard fallacies."

This of course the standard argument of someone who has not got one,pathetic.It is your duty to point out those fallacies.

"Peter, I see BNP-style speech is alive and kicking. No doubt it's members love Israel for dealing with the 'Jewish problem'. If only there could be a 'Muslim democracy' which would deal with all those troublesome Muslims, eh?"

Another standard screed for those who don't have any logic.Of course we are entitled to ask hard questions,it is us they are killing,everything is on the table after 7/11.

You of course can keep on running,we have to live here,so it is entirely reasonable to question an immigration policy which results in a sizeable minority in conflict with society.

Britain has been extraordinarily generous with its immigration policy,billions have been expended on the special needs of immigrants,in housing,health,education,jobs.Millions of people have been settled,in what is an already densely populated country, without the bloodshed that would have been encountered in many parts of the world.

Yes I will correct you ghetto is the official term,Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality,stated that it was dangerous for communities to become "ghettoised".We generally use the term "Immigrant areas",enclave is so French is it not,never "immigrant suburbs", simply because immigrants here mainly live in the inner city areas.Anyway keep on trawling for commenters for your site,and do keep moving,travel broadens the mind,you know, go to Iran to conduct some dialogue on this subject which seems to fascinate you.

For your own sake, Peter, I suggest you spend more time researching factual and rational arguments rather than relying on sarcasm which really has nothing to do with the matter at hand. You really don't come accross as very serious.

While I abhor the harming and killing of innocent civilians, it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general.

This is beyond the paleSorry but your leftoid dissembling has gone too far here,the attacks are on Jews,not Zionists,after all do the Muslims ask them before assaulting them? It is quite possible to be a Jew and not a Zionist.

I reitterate,are you left or a muslim? From your statements you are one or the other,of course you could just be stupid.

"For your own sake, Peter, I suggest you spend more time researching factual and rational arguments rather than relying on sarcasm which really has nothing to do with the matter at hand. You really don't come accross as very serious."

Jez you dont have any factual rational arguments,you are merely a poseur,I don't treat you seriously because your arguments are so grossly erroneouis which can only be classed propaganda.You 6:07 post is tantamount to "we only kill Jews by mistake" and is utterly despicable.It can only be attributed to you being a leftist,a muslim or so morally bankrupt you will say anything to get hits on your site.

While I abhor the harming and killing of innocent civilians, it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general. Furthermore, why I should have to tell them is irrelevant to our discussion here. I am neither muslim, nor a terrorist.

Jez,

Well, it only took a day, but at last we can call a Moslem a Moslem and a ghetto a ghetto. I suppose that is progress of sorts.

You might want to reread what you've written, which I have quoted above. Misguided individuals killing citizens and why should you be bothered condeming such acts? Nearly perfect, if only you could come up with a euphamism for killing... perhaps life-impairing would do?

To be blunt, you spend so much time noodling around with words you bleed them of all meaning. Parsing and reparsing commonly understood words and then declaring you've pointed out obvious fallacies isn't exactly the height of serious debate.

I said:"While I abhor the harming and killing of innocent civilians, it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general."

Peter said:"Sorry but your leftoid dissembling has gone too far here,the attacks are on Jews,not Zionists,after all do the Muslims ask them before assaulting them? It is quite possible to be a Jew and not a Zionist."

So who is assuming Israeli citizens are all Zionists?I didn't. I said I abhored the KILLING of innocent civilians.

"it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general." But they ARE attacking Jews in general,all across Europe.Your mealy mouthed qualification,elides the fact that there is a large Jewish population in Israel,ipso facto,if you target Israeli citizens,you target Jews.You abhore the "killing of inocent civilians",yet seem to be unable to see that this could be prevented by ceasing attacks on Israel.Or ar you another omelette person?

Subsaharan Africans are Christians as well as Muslims. Subsahara Africans Muslims, follow on the whole a very different type of Islam, much less strict, than in Arab or southern Asian countries.Jeremy, Jonathan? Hardly Muslim names, are they?

Peter, do you have Attention Defficiency Syndrome?You really should go over those last few posts again, slowly, making sure you don't miss anything out, and that you understand the links between each argument.Failing that, I reccommend a course in argumentative discourse.

It's a shame your clairvoyance is not matched by your reading comprehension and converstaion skills. You'd be interesting to chat with if that were the case.

I've completely lost whatever point(s) it is you are trying to make. I've made a reasonable attempt to follow and have spent way too much time reading and rereading your comments.

A minor thing, admittedly, but it might help if you learned to press the carriage return key from time to time and organize your thoughts into something resembling paragraphs rather than blatting them out in giant, undifferentiated streams. That would make it easier for your audience.

But back to your points, whatever they are. I realize it is a character flaw on my part but I don't know how to be any more accomodating than I've been. I've gone as far as to restate what I think are the major points you are making. That's a conversational technique intended to provide you an opportunity to correct any misunderstanding I've arrived at.

You don't seem interested in or capable of taking the opportunity to help me out. Instead you chose to rattle around about how enclaves that aren't enclaves but maybe they are ghettos but they're really just immigrant suburbs, how bigotry isn't bigotry if there is equal or greater bigotry toward multiple groups, how anti-zionism is some how magically different than anti-semitism without ever, as far as I can detect, offering so much as a brief description of what either is in your secret version of "common usage".

I've followed along wherever you wanted to go with the conversation, have repeatedly mentioned that while I disagree it is entirely possible that you are more or less correct, and yet you insist I am trying to "turn it into" something.

To cut to the bottom line, you are impossible to have a chat with. You don't read what people say, you make no attempt to clarify or elaborate, and you insist people said things they did not say.

Which all forces me to bid you good day and wish you well on whatever blustery journey it is you have embarked.

Well, Knucklehead, if that's the way you feel, I can only bid you farewell. I will however address the points which seem to have elluded your understanding:

The post being about immigrant suburbs and the assumption being that these are 'Moslem enclaves' as you yourself put it, I think I was entirely justified in opposing that belief, which to me, is un-justified.It's very convenient for you to make incendary comments and then claim that I am 'rattling around'.I never claimed 'bigotry isn't bigotry if there is equal or greater bigotry toward multiple groups', but simply showing that there is no monopoly of anti-semitic violence, despite what some would like to believe.As for Anti-Zionism/Anti-Semitism, I assumed you were knowlegeable enough to grasp the difference yourself. Still, I guess I was wrong, so here goes:Anti-Semitism, at least in today's usage, defines an irrational dislike for people of Jewish origin, akin to racism.Zionism, again in today's usage, is a political stance which advocates the necessity of a Jewish state. As Peter himself pointed out, Israeli citizens are not necessarily Zionists. So surely there is even more chance that Jews are not necessarily Zionists. Therefore, anti-Zionism is an opposition to the Israeli state. Nothing more. While some anti-Zionists are no doubt also anti-semitic, it is not a pre-requisite. Unless of course, 'Zionism' has magically changed definition to take on the meaning 'Jewishness'.

Peter, do you have Attention Defficiency Syndrome?You really should go over those last few posts again, slowly, making sure you don't miss anything out, and that you understand the links between each argument.Failing that, I reccommend a course in argumentative discourse.

Oh dear! Am I getting to the lie that is at the bottom of your assertions.they are not arguments.

Here,""While I abhor the harming and killing of innocent civilians, it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general.""

IT SEEMS TO YOU,that dwells purely in the realm of opinion.

Which course in argumentative discourse do yoy recommend?Obviously not the one you took since that is obviously run by charlatans.

Ambi,No it is quite permissable to kill little children in the course of attacking Zionism.A Murder bomber, for instance who wishes to make his ant-Zionist statement by blowing himself up on a bus is only killing non-Jews and non-Zionist Jews incidentally.Abhorrent but there you are.It would be useful here to note that it has been categorically stated that there are "No civilian Israelis".

"Maybe then they will stop chanting Kill the Jews in reference to Israel."

To that I answered that the terrorists he/she was referring to attack and kill Israelis, not Jews in general.

No, I don't think it is right to harm ANYBODY, unless it is in self-defense. I don't think it is justified to harm anyone physically for their opinions or beliefs.I have never claimed that it was RIGHT to do such a thing.

Terry wrote:"perhaps you should tell that to the Palestianians and their fellow Arabs not to mention the mad mullahs of Iran....perhaps then they will stop threatening to drive the Jews into the sea."

If I wanted to twist the meaning of the above comment, and take it out of context, as many here enjoy doing, i could point out that the 'fellow Arabs' in Al Qaeda have killed Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and no doubt more.What it does mean, is that there is not a specific threat to the Jewish people as a whole(I have to clarify for all to understand) from Islamist fundamentalists compared to members of other faiths. None of these faiths have states created for them, in their name.

I do Jez but do you? You seem to have the inability to understand so many things,you would have done better to read St Thomas Aquinas,rather than that old fraud Chomsky.Incidentally why won't you answer the question,is it perhaps leading you to areas that you will not discuss here?

It means shoot the son of a bitch when he threatens you, right? I knew we had something in common somewhere. Now if only France and Britain would allow the guns needed by the good citizens in self defense...

The post being about immigrant suburbs and the assumption being that these are 'Moslem enclaves' as you yourself put it, I think I was entirely justified in opposing that belief, which to me, is un-justified. It's very convenient for you to make incendary comments and then claim that I am 'rattling around'.

I am attempting to discover what lies behind your increasingly obvious anger on this topic. I remain unsure about what, precisely, you believe are the "incendiary comments" I have made.

From your comment which I just quoted above I take it what you find particularly "incendiary" is my use of the term "moslem enclave".

I suggested in other comments above that we may be having some linguistic difficulty. Since this is clearly an English language sight with American English predominant, it is incumbent upon you to accept "standard usage" rather than upon me to try and discern whatever "standard usage" is for whatever your native language is. Enclave is a term that is not the least bit freighted with any incendiary connotation in it's standard American English usage. I provided the definition far above and the definition is entirely consistent with standard usage and my usage of the term is quite standard. If you find it incendiary too freakin' bad. Get over it.

Furthermore, if you would have spent even a piddling level of effort attempting to put aside your own crankiness long enough to read what I wrote rather than what you seem to wish I wrote, you'd have read this comment from me:

The point [Jez] seems to be trying to make is that they are not "moslem" enclaves/ghettos/whatevers but, rather, immigrant whatevers which just happen to be primarily North African immigrants who just happen to be moslem.

Is that, or is that not, a central point you want to make with respect to the ongoing events in Parisian "immigrant suburbs"?

And just to touch yet again on the matter of words, linguistic difficulties, and "standard usage", would you please be kind enough to define for us what you mean by the term "suburb"?

I have poking around at this story and have come to the conclusion that the "standard usage" of the term "suburb", when used by French speaking people, is something much closer to the American English term "inner city". In standard American English usage "suburb" is most decidedly not equivalent to what we would typically refer to as "inner city ghetto".

If you, Jez, will climb down off your cranky, high-horse long enough to make as much of an attempt to understand what I am saying to you as I have made to understand what you are saying to me, we may begin to stop talking past one another and, instead, have a conversation.

Until such a thing happens I will stand by my assertion that you have little interest, or perhaps are incapable of, having a conversation.

And you know, because I stated it clearly enough, that I don't believe in killing innocent civilians unless it is in self-defense (which I suppose could include bystanders). Ok, I expect you're going to need an example:If you come at me to hit me, and I hit you in defense, and you subsequently fall on top of a bystander, then my hitting you would be justified, even if I unintentionally caused physical harm to the bystander.Somehow, I think we have drifted from the original question. But since you wanted me to define a term for you, I've done it.

KH,Ok, so you're now claiming you didn't use the term 'Moslem enclave' in an effort to define the riots as 'Moslem riots'?

KH wrote:"his latest round of riots - if what little bits and pieces of reporting we can find are accurate and there's no good reason to assume that they are - seems to be something akin to a "seperatist" movement to try and wall off Moslem ghetto enclaves from "outside interference" from the, ummm..., nationals."

I am aware of the differences between UK and US english, and the differences in meaning between French(from France) terms and UK and US terms. A suburb remains a suburb, though. In France, predominantly immigrant areas happen to be in the suburbs. I was obviously not talking about 'suburbia' or 'leafy suburbs'. As is clear from my translated quotes a bit further up, these 'ghettoes' can not be simplistically defined as 'Moslem' and neither can the riots or the angry youths.

BTW, for any still attending this thread, here is a post at Big Lizards - Is This the "Third Intifada" -- Or Not? (Daffydd) which touches on the matter of trying to determine, from the outside and using the sparse reporting (some of which is tracked and pointed to) on the Paris riots, whether this is a "Muslim" uprising or nothing more than another example of inner city rioting where, in this case, the rioters just happen to be predominantly of North African ethnicity which includes, of course, Muslim religious affiliation.

Daffydd is asking, and finding no good answers, if what seems to be Jez's claim about the "nature" of the riots is correct.

I see from your dancing around over my question about asymetrical warfare and self-defense, that you think you're avoiding a trap I'm setting for you. Actually, I was simply curious as to how honest of an answer you would give me.

To get back on topic in this thread, I was struck and rather puzzled by your objections to me using the term Moslem Ghettos. After probing a bit -- and seeing you so fervently try to get the label changed to North Africa, immigrant, or gangster -- I gather it is far more the Moslem then the Ghetto part that you're objecting to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading your comments and blog you define yourself as multicultural and un-national. I assume you believe the Nation State has outlived its usefulness. In fact, Nations are liable to cause strife. I assume you believe that a better social organization would be some sort of International organization replacing nationial governments. You also believe that the level of natural social organization exists at a much smaller scale than nations and that borders should dissappear so that people could freely move where they wanted?

Amb,I am not here to discuss my beliefs regarding states and nations. I came here to discuss the original post which commented on the riots in France.I gave perfectly valid answers to your questions about innocent civilians and self-defense. I'm no longer willing to play your silly little game.

That's exactly what I thought. The whole business of trying to remove Islam from French Moslem neighborhoods is just whistling past the graveyard.

In the pit of your stomache you know that large numbers of violent and aggressive Islamists render your happy and peaceful multicultural montage moot. If they are there, all the wishing in the world won't make them go away.

KH,Ok, so you're now claiming you didn't use the term 'Moslem enclave' in an effort to define the riots as 'Moslem riots'?

Not exactly, but close.

The riots are happening in what apparently qualify as "suburbs" in Paris. Call them what you will, it ultimately makes no difference to me.

Whatever they are, areas where the preponderance (and what indicators there are available to me suggest that the vast majority, some 80% or more in this case) of the inhabitants share some commonality of ethnicity and/or religious affiliation and/or economic status can accurately (and not incendiarily!) be called "enclaves". Whether the area is urban, suburban, exurban, or rural has no bearing upon whether the term "enclave" applies or not.

It is perfectly natural when using the term enclave to attach a further descriptor such as "Polish" or "Russian" or "Hindi" or "Hassidic" or "Moslem".

I had presumed, and have acknowledged several times, that I may be incorrect or partially so, that the strongest commonality among the inhabitants is that they are moslem. Clearly they are. They are also, as you pointed out, North African and immigrants.

You are, as far as I can tell, asserting that the "moslem" commonality among the inhabitants is far less a "unifying" characteristic than their "North African immigrants" or economic commonality is. I have acknowledged that you may be correct or at least partially so.

So, yes, I referred to them as "moslem enclaves" in the belief that that is what sort of enclave they are. I did not, however, use the term to define the riots as "moslem riots". I presume they are "moslem riots" but have repeatedly indicated that I do not know that to any degree of certainty.

You are reading far too much - and especially far too much "incendiariness" - into my use of the terms "moslem" and "enclave". Let it go - the angst over this "moslem enclave" thing is yours, not mine.

Which brings me back to this:

"This latest round of riots...

There have been other recent riots in, IIRC, Paris during which public housing was either set afire or the local inhabitants took action to hinder the police and firefighters. Therein lies my "latest round of riots" wording.

- if what little bits and pieces of reporting we can find are accurate and there's no good reason to assume that they are - ...

This acknowledged the difficulty in finding reporting on the riots in the media as well as stating my opinion (which I believe is well founded) that the veracity and/or capability of the media to get the facts or analysis correct is suspect.

seems to be something akin to a "seperatist" movement to try and wall off Moslem ghetto enclaves from "outside interference" from the, ummm..., nationals."

And this refers to the fact that the reporting, such as it was, sometimes referred to things such as...

...This area belongs to us’, the youths proclaimed. ‘The police have to stay away. This is our area. We decide what goes on down here’.... from reporting on the Danish riots,

“‘If we park our car it will be damaged – so we have to go very often in two vehicles, one just to protect the other vehicle,’ said Rolf Landgren, a Malmo police officer. Fear of violence has changed the way police, firemen and emergency workers do their jobs. There are some neighborhoods Swedish ambulance drivers will not go to without a police escort. Angry crowds have threatened them, telling them which patient to take and which ones to leave behind.”

which all suggest that in Paris, Denmark, and Sweden (at least) there is a commonly acknowledged attempt, by the inhabitants, to make some or all of these "immigrant suburbs" off limits to the standard local or national authorities. That, it sure seems to me, suggests some form of "seperatism" desired by the inhabitants in general or the rioters in particular.

And that is the fullest possible elaboration I can make regarding my earliest comments regarding this matter. I continue to believe that the "moslem-ness" of the inhabitants of these various "immigrant suburbs" is a strong factor in both the "no go" nature of them as well as in the impetus behind the rioting. You clearly disagree.

I will point out, however, that while these various "immigrant suburbs" scattered around Europe (they exist in or around cities other than Paris and in countries other than France) do not all share "North African", or "Middle Eastern" or "Arab" ethnicity. They do share "immigrant" and "moslem" commonality. Which is more important to what is going on I do not know for sure but if I were somehow required to make a wager picking one of the two, I'd opt for "moslem".

"If you come at me to hit me, and I hit you in defense, and you subsequently fall on top of a bystander, then my hitting you would be justified, even if I unintentionally caused physical harm to the bystander."

What if you knew there was a danger of collateral damage,you have to realise that the above could be no defemce in a court of law.

A Hamas sniper is shooting at you from behind a group of schoolchildren,you have no cover,there us no way to hit the sniper without hitting the children.Do you:-a)Return fire?b)Remonstrate with the sniper for being cowardly and underhand?c)Obligingly drop down dead?

I commented only on France.Not on Denmark or Sweden, of which, as I have said, I don't have much knowledge.

KH wrote:I will point out, however, that while these various "immigrant suburbs" scattered around Europe (they exist in or around cities other than Paris and in countries other than France) do not all share "North African", or "Middle Eastern" or "Arab" ethnicity. They do share "immigrant" and "moslem" commonality. Which is more important to what is going on I do not know for sure but if I were somehow required to make a wager picking one of the two, I'd opt for "moslem".

In France, you are right that they do not all share North African, Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity. You are wrong, however, in claiming they share moslem or even immigrant commonality. Look, I know areas such as the ones we are discussing. I've been there, known people there, go to university there(though not in the Parisian area). So, I'm not making a wager. I'm speaking from experience. Did you read the translated quotes?Peter, you're still playing the same game. Take a leaf out of Knuclehead's book.

"Look, I know areas such as the ones we are discussing. I've been there, known people there, go to university there(though not in the Parisian area). So, I'm not making a wager. I'm speaking from experience."

I tried to run a free text translator against the stuff at Jez's URL but couldn't get past "Emeutes of Clichy-under-drinks the young ones accuse the police Between provocations and police oppressions".

Well, buck up Emuetes of Clichy, ol' sod, and quit under drinking the young ones! And yo, young ones. Can't y'all find something better to do between provocations and police oppressions than accusing police. Like, get some sleep and stop burning stuff.

Jez,

I read your translations but fail to see how the fact that some of the "young ones" carry given names like Jeremy has much to do with this?

The question that interests me is who is behind the riots, what is stirring them up, and what is it they think they might accomplish. I'm also interested in what the implications are for Europe and, ultimately, me.

If the riots are nothing more than frustrated and oppressed young ones run amok then they are awful long-lived and widespread. This is into the 7th day now and that's an awful long time to go around burning stuff to rage against the machine. There aren't many examples I am aware of the buring and trashing portion of riots lasting more than two or three days. Longer than that seems a good indicator of someone behind the scenes working hard to keep things going - "leaders".

The fact that some of the young ones doing the rioting sport nice christian names like "Jeremy" doesn't tell us much about who the leaders are. Therein lies the key for what this is ultimately all about and what they are after.

A hint of at least what they are after is contained in the "keep out" demands that seem to be remarkably consistent across the various countries which are experiencing these riots recently.

My speculation is that despite the presence and presumed sincerity of Young Jeremy and Jonathan there are some older and quite craftier birds with very different names who would like to establish autonomy from the normal organs and processes of law and order and replace those with "something else" in some or all of the "immigrant suburbs" where the riots are taking place. I further speculate that the "something else" will turn out to be sharia.

Jeremy and Jonathan are likely to be none to happy if whoever is pulling their young strings achieves what they are after.

Regardless of all that what is it anyone over there proposes be done? The French press was positively gleeful with contempt for the stupid, barbaric Americans when we didn't clear 20,000 people away from the Superdome within three days following a hurricane. What is the position of the French press now that it seems France has no clue about how to stop widespread rioting after a week has gone by?

BTW, if anyone over there should happen to run into Young Jonathan they might wanna point out that he don't know diddley about what its like in America and he might want to drop the Nostradamus nonsense ;)

Pretty much everything I've written here shows that there is little, if any, rational basis for the idea that these riots are about religion. All you have offered is speculation.And yet, if there is burden of proof, it lies heavily on your shoulders.

By the way, you said you had often 'eavesdropped' on conversations in France. I hope your translator was better than the one you just mentioned!

"Pretty much everything I've written here shows that there is little, if any, rational basis for the idea that these riots are about religion. All you have offered is speculation.And yet, if there is burden of proof, it lies heavily on your shoulders."

Now that is what I CALL projection.You like parsing words,if you just change "shows" to "asserts" the "you" and "your" to "I" and we might be achieving a rapprochement

Ah, Jez, your French hubris and arrogance is showing. I did not say I often eavesdrop on conversatons in France.

I said that while in Europe (please note that despite French opinion to the contrary there is far more to Europe than France) I try, whenever possible, to eavesdrop on or engage in conversation. French is extremely problematic for me - I have no ear for it, no training or long term exposure to it, and no interest in it. It is not possible for me to eavesdrop on, or engage in,conversations conducted in French - I neither speak nor read the language beyond the level of menus and directions.

If you were to review what I've said you'd find very little, if any, specific to France. My comments have been generalized to Europe and while I have been to France several times my exposure to other parts of Europe is more extensive.

Ambi,I particulary like those called Jeremy and Jonathon,sound more like a couple of English public schoolboys.They ssem to have done a lot of damage between the two of them,I always thought these exchange students were more trouble than they are worth.

Jeremy and Jonathon,sound more like a couple of English public schoolboys.

Gap year, perhaps. A chance to do something different while resurrecting the traditional English approach to France. When they return to University they will roll back their sleeves, bare their hearts, show their scars, and say, "These wounds I received on the way to the Feast"

Chuck,We were cruelly oppressed by Bloody Duke William of Normandy,who inflicted a line of monarchs who to say the least,gave us a bad name around the world.this was seared,dry roasted and cooked at gas mark 7 into our psyche.Just think of Agincourt,Crecy,Trafalgar,and Waterloo as our riots.It is a pity for the poor French,but one would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

An excellent point and one I expect will survive the after action reporting. I saw a report, however, that the press has pulled out because the rioters were mugging for the cameras (another very un-Amish behavior, BTW). It is possible we just haven't yet seen the evidence of the tidying. Also, we wouldn't know about the planting of crops, at least not definitively, until after the winter (does winter wheat thrive in Paris?)

KH,Being Franco-British of Austrian-Jewish and Italian origin, I doubt I could be accused of thinking there is nothing more to Europe than France.You, however, as you have just admitted, generalise about Europe on the basis of speculation and 'eavesdropping' conversations that apparently are not in French. Imagine, for a moment, that I were to judge Americans and the US based on my one week in New York(and an hour at Seattle airport!).And yet, the US is one country with one official language.Europe is not, and despite what some want us to think, Europe is nowhere near being a close-knit community, as much as I want to believe in that idea. It seems to me, you(and others)would like to equate the French with their leaders. If you really knew the French(a cross section) you wouldn't think they thought of Europe as nothing more than France. Many French tend to overreact to what they percieve as foreign threats(Brussels, Britain, US, Turkey, Muslims), but I think you'll find French thinking is not as simple as the actions of French governments.Again, should I come to the conclusion that Americans are bible-bashing, flag-waving belligerant morons, just because that's how President Bush comes accross? Thankfully, I have a little more jugment than that.

BTW, Jeremy and Jonathan are more likely to be Subsaharan Christians, but you couldn't know that, could you?Of course, they could well be Jewish (no sarcasm), even if that is less llikely. First and foremost, however, they are likely to be French. Probably more French than I am-despite my white skin.

For your own good beg, borrow, steal, lease, rent, grow, or otherwise procure a sense of humor. They really are helpful and you really need one.

...as you have just admitted, generalize about Europe on the basis of speculation and 'eavesdropping' conversations that apparently are not in French.

WTF is that supposed to demonstrate? You got me, dude. I've generalised about Europe based upon conversations which weren't in French. High crimes and misdemeanors!

Imagine, for a moment, that I were to judge Americans and the US based on my one week in New York(and an hour at Seattle airport!

Well, actually, dear child, it would be a bit different. Let's see... rough calcs... 27 into 3... carry the 3... call it 11... probably a bit overstated... chop off 20%... call it 8% of my adult life spent in Europe. You've got one week and an airport visit in the US. Presuming you are older than say, 19, that would make your exposure to the US somewhere seriously south or 2% or your adult lifetime.

Now, you certainly have a big advantage on the multi-lingual front but no so great as may presume. In case you haven't noticed it is quite common to find conversations carried on in English whilst aboard European trains and planes, in hotel lobbies and restaurants, and also during business functions drawing people from several countries. And I an not hopelessly uni-lingual. I can manage to function reasonably well in several places where kings and/or queens still exist. My German, while never strong, has gone hopelessly rusty. But, heh, language is a fascinating thing. It provides an enormous amount of situational clues. One needn't, for example, speak or understand a single word of Estonian to recognize that the Estonian gents are speaking very favorably and animatedly about the young woman who just passed by.

Knucklehead, if you think this is a game of who spent most time in the other one's country/continent, too bad.As you have admitted you generalise about Europe. You said you could be wrong about the Islamic background to the riots in France, and I think I have shown that there is no basis for such an idea. If you can't accept that speculating is not evidence, too bad. I'm bored now. Either come up with some kind of evidence that what you are speculating is true, or accept that you are wrong. Failing that, there really is no point in carrying on. If you want claim to have 'won', fine:I'm not after recognition, I just can't stand speculation based on nothing and/or lies. I think we've had a reasonably civil debate.I'm sure Peter was trying to be funny...

if you think this is a game of who spent most time in the other one's country/continent, too bad.

You're the one who brought forward the "as if" comparison. I simply responded.

You said you could be wrong about the Islamic background to the riots in France, and I think I have shown that there is no basis for such an idea. If you can't accept that speculating is not evidence, too bad.

I have never claimed to be presenting "evidence". I have labeled my speculations as precisely that - numerous times. And I have provided elaboration about why I arrive at the speculations I make and, to a lesser extent, how they may be flawed.

It is you who seems to believe your speculation is the equivalent of presenting evidence - it is you who claims to have "shown" this or that. You have done nothing of the sort. You have speculated, presented some basis for you speculation, but accept no flaw. You declare your speculations to be facts.

Boring is as boring does.

Either come up with some kind of evidence that what you are speculating is true, or accept that you are wrong.

That may be the single stupidest thing you've said. Why would I accept the incorrectness what I fully admit is speculation based upon, well, nothing but contrary speculation?

Why don't you return when all this has become clearer and there is some actual evidence about who, if anyone, is pulling strings behind the rioters and then we'll discuss whether or not various speculations proved to be correct or incorrect and to what degree.

Everyone in this thread has consistently spoken of these riots as if they were the acts of Muslims, led by Muslims, coordinated by Muslims. If you want to now act as if you were just guessing, that's fine with me. I've wasted enough time. What interests me is reality, not empty speculation, based on what I'd like to believe. I'm sure you think all I want is to defend Muslims. In fact, I spent several months in a similar kind of debate with people who claimed the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world, and who praised Bin Laden. They may have been more extremist in their beliefs, but like most of the people here, they just wanted to believe in something, and no amount of reasoning could make any difference.

I suppose I need to plead guilty as charged. The road to Stuck-on-Stupid is sometimes paved with good intentions. In this case it was a good faith effort gone awry. I'll the results in mind for the future but I am increasingly forgetful so the lesson may not stick - I'll likely repeat the error 'fore too long.